Self-Defence, Infancy, Duress and Necessity Flashcards Preview

Criminal Law > Self-Defence, Infancy, Duress and Necessity > Flashcards

Flashcards in Self-Defence, Infancy, Duress and Necessity Deck (38)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

R v Gladstone Williams

A

Ratio: 1. Protection of life and limb of yourself or another is a reason for acting. 2. D’s belief that the use of force is necessary can be mistaken.

Facts: A youth saw a woman being robbed and attempted to lawfully apprehend the robber. Williams arrived and thought the youth was unlawfully attacking the robber and so attacked the youth. Williams was charged under s.47 OAPA 1861 and successfully argued self-defence even though he was mistaken as to the necessity of his actions.

2
Q

R v Hussey

A

Ratio: Protection of property is a reason for acting.

3
Q

R v Bullerton

A

Ratio: Self-defence does not operate as a defence for actions taken arising from a threat to one’s peace of mind.

4
Q

R v O’Connor

A

Ratio: If D’s mistaken belief as to the need to use force is due to voluntary intoxication, he will not be able to rely on his mistake.

5
Q

R v Hatton

A

Ratio: If D’s mistaken belief as to the need to use force is due to voluntary intoxication, he will not be able to rely on his mistake.

Facts: H had drunk over 20 pints and killed his victim with a sledgehammer. The victim had been pretending to be a member of the SAS and a stick, owned by H and which H had fashioned to look like a samurai sword was found by the victim’s body. H only had a vague recollection of what happened but put forward a defence on the basis that he believed he was being attacked by an SAS officer with a sword. Court held this mistaken belief was brought about by intoxication and so could not be relied upon.

6
Q

R v Bird

A

Ratio: There is no duty to retreat.

7
Q

Devlin v Armstrong

A

Ratio: Pre-emptive strikes are allowed in the case of self-defence as long as the threat is imminent.

8
Q

R v Forrester

A

Ratio: Self-defence may be used by an antagonist.

Facts: F was a tenant of W who had retained D’s deposit on termination of the tenancy. F and others went to the premises and removed some of W’s property. Evidence suggested that while on the premises F could have been attacked by W. F was entitled to rely on self-defence.

9
Q

R v Rashford

A

Ratio: Self-defence may be used by an antagonist. The defence is only available to the person who started the fight if the person whom he attacks not only defends himself but goes over to the offensive.

10
Q

R v Hichens

A

Ratio: Force can be used against an innocent third party.

Facts: D moved in with Y. Y’s ex-boyfriend objected to this and threatened D several times. Y’s ex-boyfriend came to the flat and Y wanted to let her in. D slapped Y to try to prevent her allowing her ex-boyfriend in. D tried to claim he had used reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime in self-defence. This was accepted in principle although not on the facts.

11
Q

R v Owino

A

Ratio: For non-householder cases, the jury must determine whether the force used was reasonable. This is an objective test according to the facts as D understood them to be.

12
Q

Palmer v R

A

Ratio: In non-householder cases, the jury must consider that the defendant may have acted in the heat of the moment.

13
Q

Reed v Wastie

A

Ratio: ‘In the circumstances one did not use jewellers’ scales to measure reasonable force’.

14
Q

R (on the application of Denby Collins) v SoS Justive

A

Ratio: For householder cases, there is a two part test for the second limb of self-defence. 1. Is the force grossly disproportionate? 2. If not, is it reasonable?

15
Q

R v Clegg

A

Ratio: Self-defence is an all or nothing defence - if it fails in any way it will fail entirely.

16
Q

R v T

A

Ratio: The defence of doli incapax (incapable of guilt), can never apply to children over ten.

17
Q

R v Graham

A

Ratio: 1. First case to define the defence of duress by threats. 2. The threat and response will be judged objectively.

18
Q

R v Hasan

A

Ratio: 1. There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury. 2. The threat must be made to D/his family/someone close to D/someone D felt responsible for. 3. Perception of threat and response must be judged objectively. 4. There must be a causal nexus between the threat and the crime. 5. There must be no evasive action D could reasonably have taken. 6. ‘The defence of duress is excluded when as a result of the accused’s voluntary association with others engaged in criminal activity he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence’’. 7. Duress is not a defence to murder.

19
Q

DPP for NI v Lynch

A

Ratio: For duress, threat to property is not enough.

20
Q

R v Shayler

A

Ratio: For duress, the defendant can consider himself responsible for strangers.

21
Q

R v Brandford

A

Ratio: 1. Threat to D can be relayed indirectly. 2. Pressure is insufficient.

22
Q

R v Bowen

A

Ratio: When determining whether the perception of the threat and response is reasonable, any recognised mental health conditions suffered by D can be considered.

23
Q

Abbott v R

A

Ratio: When determining whether the perception of the threat and the response is reasonable, proportionality will be considered.

24
Q

R v Cole

A

Ratio: For duress, there must be a causal link between the threat and the crime.

Facts: Cole pleaded duress after robbing a building society to pay debts to moneylenders. Court held that a plea of duress was not available as moneylenders had not stipulated that he commit robbery to meet their demands.

25
Q

R v Valderrama-Vega

A

Ratio: A defendant is entitled to rely on duress if he acts because of the cumulative effect of threats, providing he would not have acted if it had not been for the threat of death or serious injury.

Facts: D claimed he had imported cocaine because of death threats and also because he needed to the money to repay a debt. Trial judge directed the jury that the defence of duress would not work if there were multiple reasons for committing the crime. Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection.

26
Q

R v Hudson and Taylor

A

Ratio: Example of the court taking a flexible approach to whether the defendant could have taken evasive action.

Facts: Two girls gave false evidence because they had been threatened with physical injury if they told the truth by an individual who was sitting in the gallery of the court. They were allowed to use the defence of duress to a charge of perjury as their will was being acted on by the threat at the time.

Note - in Hasan, the courts were not as accommodating: if the retribution threatened ‘is not such as he reasonably expects to follow immediately or almost immediately on his failure to comply with the threat, there may be little if any room for doubt that he could have taken evasive action’.

27
Q

R v Sharp

A

Ratio: If a person joins a violent gang, they lay themselves open to threats.

Facts: Accused joined a gang of robbers who he knew used firearms. He participated in a robbery and tried to claim he did so because the gang had threatened to kill him if he did not. Defence of duress was not available to him.

28
Q

R v Shepherd

A

Ratio: Duress may succeed if a person joins a gang but did not foresee the possibility of violence being used.

Facts: S had been in a gang of shoplifters. When he tried to leave the gang he was threatened with violence and so was compelled to carry on. Court held that duress was applicable as he had not foreseen that the gang would become violent.

29
Q

R v Ali (Israr)

A

Ratio: The association does not need to be with criminals to prevent the defence of duress from operating.

30
Q

Abbott v R

A

Ratio: Duress is not available as a defence to murder.

31
Q

R v Gotts

A

Ratio: Duress is not available as a defence to attempted murder.

32
Q

London Borough of Southwark v Williams

A

Ratio: Necessity is not a general defence.

Facts: a homeless man was not allowed to plead necessity to justify trespassing.

33
Q

R v Dudley and Stevens

A

Ratio: Necessity is not a defence to murder.

34
Q

Re A (Minors) Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment

A

Ratio: Necessity was allowed to kill one twin.

35
Q

R v Martin

A

Ratio: Test for duress of circumstances - 1. Was the accused, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious physical injury would result. 2. If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to the situation by acting as the accused did?

Note - the threat must be of death or serious personal injury.

36
Q

R v Pommell

A

Ratio: Duress of circumstances is available in circumstances other than traffic offences.

Facts: Pommell was found with a gun, claimed he had taken it to prevent a friend murdering someone. Court held that duress of circumstances was available.

37
Q

R v Baker and Wilkins

A

Ratio: Duress of circumstances can be available to a charge of criminal damage, provided the accused acted to prevent death or serious personal injury.

38
Q

R v Abdul-Hussain

A

Ratio: Duress of circumstances is available where the threat is imminent, even if it is not immediate.